R v Bedford

[2008] QCA 206

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Bedford [2008] QCA 206

PARTIES:

R
v
BEDFORD, Llyod Arthur
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 13 of 2008
DC No 3256 of 2007
DC No 3553 of 2007
DC No 327 of 2006
DC No 1002 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

28 July 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 July 2008

JUDGES:

Keane, Muir and Fraser JJA

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDERS:

1. Appeal dismissed

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence  dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON PLEA OF GUILTY – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the appellant did not make any submissions as to the appeal against conviction apart from some observations relating to comments apparently made by the Chief Judge of the District Court presumably at a call over

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one cont of attempting to dishonestly obtain an 18 plus card from the Minister for Transport, one count of receiving a stolen global positioning system with reason to believe it had been stolen, one count of dishonestly obtaining a sum of money and stealing a pair of sunglasses – where the applicant was sentenced on each count to 10 months imprisonment – where the applicant was sentenced at the same time on pleas of guilty to eight months imprisonment for two offences of driving whilst disqualified by a court order and to three month terms of imprisonment for each of six other offences – where the offences on the four count indictment were committed during the term of a suspended sentence that had been imposed on 29 June 2006 – where the sentencing judge activated 18 months of the remaining term of the suspended sentence and ordered that the 18 month term be cumulative upon the eight and 10 month terms of imprisonment – where the applicant had an extensive criminal history, including convictions for 65 offences  of dishonesty – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

COUNSEL:

The appellant/applicant appeared on his own behalf
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant/applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

KEANE JA:  Justice Muir will deliver his reasons in relation to the application first.

MUIR J:  On 12 December 2007 the applicant pleaded guilty to four counts on an indictment and was sentenced on each to 10 months imprisonment.  The terms of imprisonment were ordered to be served concurrently.  The counts on the indictment were:

(a)Attempting to dishonestly obtain an 18 plus card from the Minister for Transport;

(b)Receiving a stolen global positioning system with reason to believe it had been stolen;

(c)Dishonestly obtaining a sum of money; and

(d)Stealing a pair of sunglasses.

The applicant was sentenced at the same time on pleas of guilty to eight months imprisonment for two offences of driving whilst disqualified by a court order, and to three month terms of imprisonment for each of six other offences.  Such terms were ordered to be served concurrently but accumulatively upon the 10 month terms to which reference has been made and the 18 months imprisonment to which reference is about to be made.

On 29 June 2006 the applicant was convicted of one count of dangerous operation of a vehicle with a circumstance of aggravation, nine counts of fraud, one count of stealing, one count of fraud to the value of $5,000 or more, one count of attempted fraud to the value of $5,000 or more, three counts of possessing tainted property, two counts of possessing property suspected of being stolen, one count of possession of dangerous drugs, two counts of unauthorised dealing with shop goods and one count of contravention of a direction.  He was sentenced in respect of these events to three years imprisonment, suspended for four years after serving 497 days.  467 days spent in pre-sentence custody were declared time already served under the sentence.

The offences on the four count indictment were committed during the term of the suspended sentence.  The sentencing judge activated 18 months of the remaining term of the suspended sentence and ordered that the 18 months term be cumulative upon the 10 month terms of imprisonment.

The applicant was 56 years of age when sentenced.  The sentencing judge accurately described the applicant's criminal history as "really appalling".  He has been convicted on 20 occasions since 1971 of 65 offences of dishonesty.  In 1985 he was sentenced for such offences to six years imprisonment.  That was his lengthiest term of imprisonment.  It was ordered to be served concurrently with a term of five years imposed shortly before for selling dangerous drugs.  In 1995, he was sentenced to four years imprisonment for offences of house breaking and break, enter and steal.  He was also then sentenced to a concurrent term of imprisonment for trafficking.  In 1997 he was imprisoned for 12 months for unlawful wounding.  In 2006 he was sentenced to the three years suspended sentence already discussed.
The offences on the four count indictment were similar in nature to some of those which were the subject of the 2006 suspended sentence.  As already mentioned, they were committed during the operational period of the suspended sentence. 

The circumstances of the offences on the four count indictment require little explanation.  The offence in relation to the 18 plus card was committed when the applicant procured another to manufacture forged New South Wales birth certificates which the applicant then uttered, in a fraudulent attempt, to obtain a Queensland 18 plus card.  His purpose was to use that card to assist him in obtaining a false driver's licence.

The ground of appeal to be relied on should the application for leave to appeal succeed is that the sentences were manifestly excessive.  It is not suggested that the sentencing judge made any errors of law or proceeded on any wrong principles.  It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that the sentencing judge imposed a moderate sentence having regard to the applicant's prior criminal history and prospects of rehabilitation.  Counsel for the respondent pointed out that the sentencing judge had refrained from activating all of the unserved portion of the partially suspended sentence and fixed a parole release date at a point four months earlier than the halfway point of the period of imprisonment ordered to be served.  It was submitted that the applicant's period of imprisonment was about as short as it could reasonably be.

The applicant also filed a Notice of Appeal in which he appealed against his conviction.  The Notice of Appeal appeared only to address the severity of the sentence imposed and it seems the outcome of the appeal against conviction resulted from the applicant's accidental failure to delete from the Notice of Appeal the reference to "conviction".  The applicant who appeared in person did not address any submissions in relation to any appeal against conviction.  The sole matter he was concerned with was some observations which he said were made by the Chief Judge of the District Court at, it would seem, a call over.  However, as counsel for the respondent points out we are concerned here with the determination of the sentencing judge.  The circumstances in which the Chief Judge may or may not have made the observations of which the applicant speaks are unknown and, in any event, are not relevant to our deliberation.  It is apparent, I think, from the above recitation of facts that the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge in the light of the applicant's criminal history, the nature of the offences and the circumstances in which they were committed were not excessive, let alone, manifestly so. 

I would order that the appeal against conviction be dismissed and that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed also.

FRASER JA:  I agree.

KEANE JA:  I agree.  The order of the Court will be appeal dismissed and application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed.